Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 11:01:53 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:45:44 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:33:16 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Newton was an alchemist. Seriously. He was also one of the nastiest people ever to do science, and had no problem ruining other careers to further his own. Einstein was completely self-absorbed and would never admit that he was wrong (barring one famous admission regarding the cosmological constant). Neither of this men was the legendary truth-seeker people make them out to be. (My great uncle personally knew both Oppenheimer and Einstein, and he told me that  at times "Oppie" was literally ready to kill Einstein for being "exceedingly and unreasonably stubborn," or something like that.)

Now, you keep repeating your argument about gravity, but the fact is, no matter how much more intricate and detailed you make the theory, you can never take out the a priori argument that renders it useless. This is why there is no need for such new interpretations while the old ones still work.

old theories always work if you narrow it down to the frontiers that it was used for before. Newton's theory works, but not for things that are exceedingly heavy, or moving at highspeeds, hence SR/GR. You yourself can use the old model of "it falls down because it's heavy" for everyday assumptions (it will work exceedingly well) but try using that to explain the movements and physical properties of certain celestial objects and you'll see that the tool "it falls down because its heavy" is woefully inadequate.

Try to see beyond your own modest exploration of the world and you'll see that people need more sophisticated solutions based on rationality, evidence and (in some very rare cases) precedence, also known as "Rules of Thumb". Gravity might seem to you to be an ad hoc solution to an already explained phenomena, but in actual fact that phenomena involves more than just "falling down".

The question boils down to how far you are willing to take theory, and the zetetic process stresses limiting theory as much as possible. This is why I refuse to accept gravitational theory.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 11:52:25 AM

When exactly was my argument rendered useless?

Einstein was a kraut (as am I, don't ban me for the racial slur), his stubbornness was to be expected. And I can say that my great uncle knew Einstein as well, that may or may not be true, and unless you can prove it to me, it seems quite far fetched. A lot of people have claimed to know the smartest or most famous men (and women), I hear it all the time from all kinds of people. Like I said, our discussion is at a stand still. Neither of us is going to bend to the other. It is common knowledge among people who know of the topic, that Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together on the Manhattan Project, and were constantly at odds. I learned that when I did my fifth grade science project on Nuclear Reactions.

You did not reply to my argument. You took a tiny aside in my post, questioned my honesty, and failed to respond intelligently to the arguments I forwarded.

Now, Einstein and Oppenheimer did NOT work together on the Manhattan project. Einstein never worked on the atomic bomb, regardless of what you heard in your childhood. The disagreement between Oppenheimer and Einstein was regarding QUANTUM MECHANICS and Einstein's rigid opinion regarding QE. Later, after Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked, he moved more into the realm of public intellectual, which once again pitted him against Einstein, who was a loner, distrusted the masses, and rejected concensus when it disagreed with his views. Whatever you learned in school was false, but that is not as surprising as the fact that you base your arguments on things you learned in fifth grade.

As for your aspersions regarding my great uncle, fuck you and your lack of common decency. I didn't even bring that in as proof, just as an interesting little anecdote. Learn to debate like a person, not like a middle-schooler with something to prove.

Just so you know, Einstein was originally brought in for the Manhattan Project, but left very early on. He also wrote a letter to the President asking him not to use the weapon. He may have been arrogant and stubborn, but he was nonetheless a brilliant man. A lot of brilliant men become arrogant and stubborn. My point about learning it in the fifth grade was not that I am basing everything off of that, it was just to show that it is rather elementary and easy to access knowledge, as I did all of the research independently of the school system. It turns out you can learn a lot from the public library and the internet. As far as your great uncle goes, I'm not sure why you're getting so angry. I was simply saying that I don't believe you. The comment itself was unnecessary to the debate, as it did not provide any substance aside from the fact that it gave you the opportunity to discuss the fact that Einstein and Oppenheimer did not get along. I'm sure you could see why someone saying something like that is hard to believe.

When you say whatever I learned in school was false, are you referring to Einstein and Oppenheimer? Or are you talking about the discussion we've been having as a whole? I didn't learn that much about Einstein from school, just some formula, a few famous quotes that I didn't give a rat's ass about, and a few of his theories. Most of what I learned about him and his work, as well as the Manhattan Project, I did on my own.

Quote from: burt on July 24, 2012, 05:38:52 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 11:01:53 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:45:44 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:33:16 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Newton was an alchemist. Seriously. He was also one of the nastiest people ever to do science, and had no problem ruining other careers to further his own. Einstein was completely self-absorbed and would never admit that he was wrong (barring one famous admission regarding the cosmological constant). Neither of this men was the legendary truth-seeker people make them out to be. (My great uncle personally knew both Oppenheimer and Einstein, and he told me that  at times "Oppie" was literally ready to kill Einstein for being "exceedingly and unreasonably stubborn," or something like that.)

Now, you keep repeating your argument about gravity, but the fact is, no matter how much more intricate and detailed you make the theory, you can never take out the a priori argument that renders it useless. This is why there is no need for such new interpretations while the old ones still work.

old theories always work if you narrow it down to the frontiers that it was used for before. Newton's theory works, but not for things that are exceedingly heavy, or moving at highspeeds, hence SR/GR. You yourself can use the old model of "it falls down because it's heavy" for everyday assumptions (it will work exceedingly well) but try using that to explain the movements and physical properties of certain celestial objects and you'll see that the tool "it falls down because its heavy" is woefully inadequate.

Try to see beyond your own modest exploration of the world and you'll see that people need more sophisticated solutions based on rationality, evidence and (in some very rare cases) precedence, also known as "Rules of Thumb". Gravity might seem to you to be an ad hoc solution to an already explained phenomena, but in actual fact that phenomena involves more than just "falling down".

The question boils down to how far you are willing to take theory, and the zetetic process stresses limiting theory as much as possible. This is why I refuse to accept gravitational theory.

You refuse to accept gravitional theory because you have been told to?

Zeteticism might stress what you say it does, but the very process itself misses the fact that there is no knowledge that is not based on somekind of theory; Zeteticism is a theory, with many other components that are theoretical: the emprical method, the experiential method etc. if you want to minimise theory as much as possible, please refrain from trying to understand the world.

Zeteticism, as far as I can tell, does not try to understand the world. It is based off of trying to come up with some explanation for what is coming in through your senses. This is why the Vikings had gods like Thor, and the Greeks had gods like Poseidon. You could almost say that most of them practice Zeteticism.

Zeteticism, as far as I can tell, does not try to understand the world. It is based off of trying to come up with some explanation for what is coming in through your senses. This is why the Vikings had gods like Thor, and the Greeks had gods like Poseidon. You could almost say that most of them practice Zeteticism.

And, how long have you been an expert in Zeteticism?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 11:15:20 AM

Zeteticism, as far as I can tell, does not try to understand the world. It is based off of trying to come up with some explanation for what is coming in through your senses. This is why the Vikings had gods like Thor, and the Greeks had gods like Poseidon. You could almost say that most of them practice Zeteticism.

And, how long have you been an expert in Zeteticism?

You don't have to be an expert to report your own experience of something; note: "as far as I can tell", that should give you some clue as to where he is coming from. you don't even have to be an expert to say whether something is usefull or not. I know next to nothing about astrophysics, but I can clearly tell it has no bearing on that lasagne I cooked earlier.

Zeteticism, as far as I can tell, does not try to understand the world. It is based off of trying to come up with some explanation for what is coming in through your senses. This is why the Vikings had gods like Thor, and the Greeks had gods like Poseidon. You could almost say that most of them practice Zeteticism.

From your point of view, then, it is a kind of phenomenology? still we are in the midst of theory; senses are a theoretical framework, built over millenia of evolution, to help an organism survive. whether that organism is aware that its apprehension of the world is theoretical has no bearing on whether or not it is theoretical.

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 12:19:09 PM

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

I've heard of Mr. Fuller, the other two don't ring a bell. I can't tell you where I heard of Fuller, just that I have. But anyway, those are just the impressions I get of Zeteticism from what I've seen here on this website, as this was (oddly enough) the first place I heard of the practice.

Quote from: burt on July 25, 2012, 12:55:32 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 12:19:09 PM

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

I've heard of Mr. Fuller, the other two don't ring a bell. I can't tell you where I heard of Fuller, just that I have. But anyway, those are just the impressions I get of Zeteticism from what I've seen here on this website, as this was (oddly enough) the first place I heard of the practice.

Buckminster Fuller was once times man of the year, he discovered a sub branch of geometry, the prinicples of which led him to invent the geodesic dome.

Korzybski is an obscure scientist whose majore scientific theorys have been either refuted or subsumed under better theories.

Robert Anton Wilson is too hard to explain, he is a trickster and a mischievous writer. His stance is the more hilaritas the better. He was part of the counter-culture that involved leary, kesey, mckenna and thornley.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:22:52 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 11:35:05 AM

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity. Gravity gives this mass it's apparent "weight." If I take a 1 pound object to the moon, it will only "weigh" .16 pounds. Thus it will fall slower. If you throw it very hard, it will not fall down, at least not for a very long time, it may even retain enough velocity to go into orbit.

The laws of physics aren't something man "made up." They come from man studying the world around him and giving things names, trying to understand how these things work (usually doing so with mathematics, as it is universally understood and gives a better explanation than words). Without understanding these laws, there are a lot of technological advances that would have NEVER HAPPENED. For instance, the computer you are using to spew your ignorance, which you are spewing on the internet. Neither of these things would have come to fruition without an understanding of these laws.

Finally, I am insulted by the way you respond to an intelligent argument. You think that your invention of some mystical "gravity" concept gives you the right to name-call and libel others. I never engaged in such behavior and see it as further proof of the corruption that is insidiously pulsating throughout our society.

Hardly an intelligent argument....At least some Zetic believers on here have argued better than you.  Here let me spoon feed this to you: Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses.

Oh an I don't recall anyone name calling you, just calling out your sad arguments.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

Please keep in mind, Linguists are not scientists, and in the dictionary they are merely related words with same or SIMILAR meaning.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 01:43:18 PM

Quote from: burt on July 25, 2012, 12:55:32 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 12:19:09 PM

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

I've heard of Mr. Fuller, the other two don't ring a bell. I can't tell you where I heard of Fuller, just that I have. But anyway, those are just the impressions I get of Zeteticism from what I've seen here on this website, as this was (oddly enough) the first place I heard of the practice.

Buckminster Fuller was once times man of the year, he discovered a sub branch of geometry, the prinicples of which led him to invent the geodesic dome.

Korzybski is an obscure scientist whose majore scientific theorys have been either refuted or subsumed under better theories.

Robert Anton Wilson is too hard to explain, he is a trickster and a mischievous writer. His stance is the more hilaritas the better. He was part of the counter-culture that involved leary, kesey, mckenna and thornley.

Wilson was involved with Leary, as in Timothy Leary? That should explain itself right there.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 12:37:44 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:22:52 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 11:35:05 AM

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity. Gravity gives this mass it's apparent "weight." If I take a 1 pound object to the moon, it will only "weigh" .16 pounds. Thus it will fall slower. If you throw it very hard, it will not fall down, at least not for a very long time, it may even retain enough velocity to go into orbit.

The laws of physics aren't something man "made up." They come from man studying the world around him and giving things names, trying to understand how these things work (usually doing so with mathematics, as it is universally understood and gives a better explanation than words). Without understanding these laws, there are a lot of technological advances that would have NEVER HAPPENED. For instance, the computer you are using to spew your ignorance, which you are spewing on the internet. Neither of these things would have come to fruition without an understanding of these laws.

Finally, I am insulted by the way you respond to an intelligent argument. You think that your invention of some mystical "gravity" concept gives you the right to name-call and libel others. I never engaged in such behavior and see it as further proof of the corruption that is insidiously pulsating throughout our society.

Hardly an intelligent argument....At least some Zetic believers on here have argued better than you.  Here let me spoon feed this to you: Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses.

Oh an I don't recall anyone name calling you, just calling out your sad arguments.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

Please keep in mind, Linguists are not scientists, and in the dictionary they are merely related words with same or SIMILAR meaning.

You're late.

Quote from: burt on July 25, 2012, 02:18:24 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 01:43:18 PM

Quote from: burt on July 25, 2012, 12:55:32 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 12:19:09 PM

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

I've heard of Mr. Fuller, the other two don't ring a bell. I can't tell you where I heard of Fuller, just that I have. But anyway, those are just the impressions I get of Zeteticism from what I've seen here on this website, as this was (oddly enough) the first place I heard of the practice.

Buckminster Fuller was once times man of the year, he discovered a sub branch of geometry, the prinicples of which led him to invent the geodesic dome.

Korzybski is an obscure scientist whose majore scientific theorys have been either refuted or subsumed under better theories.

Robert Anton Wilson is too hard to explain, he is a trickster and a mischievous writer. His stance is the more hilaritas the better. He was part of the counter-culture that involved leary, kesey, mckenna and thornley.

Wilson was involved with Leary, as in Timothy Leary? That should explain itself right there.

Quote from: mallory d. on July 25, 2012, 10:02:01 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 12:37:44 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:22:52 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 11:35:05 AM

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity. Gravity gives this mass it's apparent "weight." If I take a 1 pound object to the moon, it will only "weigh" .16 pounds. Thus it will fall slower. If you throw it very hard, it will not fall down, at least not for a very long time, it may even retain enough velocity to go into orbit.

The laws of physics aren't something man "made up." They come from man studying the world around him and giving things names, trying to understand how these things work (usually doing so with mathematics, as it is universally understood and gives a better explanation than words). Without understanding these laws, there are a lot of technological advances that would have NEVER HAPPENED. For instance, the computer you are using to spew your ignorance, which you are spewing on the internet. Neither of these things would have come to fruition without an understanding of these laws.

Finally, I am insulted by the way you respond to an intelligent argument. You think that your invention of some mystical "gravity" concept gives you the right to name-call and libel others. I never engaged in such behavior and see it as further proof of the corruption that is insidiously pulsating throughout our society.

Hardly an intelligent argument....At least some Zetic believers on here have argued better than you.  Here let me spoon feed this to you: Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses.

Oh an I don't recall anyone name calling you, just calling out your sad arguments.

Quote from: mallory d. on July 25, 2012, 10:05:20 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

Please keep in mind, Linguists are not scientists, and in the dictionary they are merely related words with same or SIMILAR meaning.

You're late.

Indeed, My sincere apologies.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 26, 2012, 06:18:55 AM

Quote from: burt on July 25, 2012, 02:18:24 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 01:43:18 PM

Quote from: burt on July 25, 2012, 12:55:32 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 12:19:09 PM

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

I've heard of Mr. Fuller, the other two don't ring a bell. I can't tell you where I heard of Fuller, just that I have. But anyway, those are just the impressions I get of Zeteticism from what I've seen here on this website, as this was (oddly enough) the first place I heard of the practice.

Buckminster Fuller was once times man of the year, he discovered a sub branch of geometry, the prinicples of which led him to invent the geodesic dome.

Korzybski is an obscure scientist whose majore scientific theorys have been either refuted or subsumed under better theories.

Robert Anton Wilson is too hard to explain, he is a trickster and a mischievous writer. His stance is the more hilaritas the better. He was part of the counter-culture that involved leary, kesey, mckenna and thornley.

Wilson was involved with Leary, as in Timothy Leary? That should explain itself right there.

Quote from: mallory d. on July 25, 2012, 10:02:01 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 12:37:44 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:22:52 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 11:35:05 AM

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity. Gravity gives this mass it's apparent "weight." If I take a 1 pound object to the moon, it will only "weigh" .16 pounds. Thus it will fall slower. If you throw it very hard, it will not fall down, at least not for a very long time, it may even retain enough velocity to go into orbit.

The laws of physics aren't something man "made up." They come from man studying the world around him and giving things names, trying to understand how these things work (usually doing so with mathematics, as it is universally understood and gives a better explanation than words). Without understanding these laws, there are a lot of technological advances that would have NEVER HAPPENED. For instance, the computer you are using to spew your ignorance, which you are spewing on the internet. Neither of these things would have come to fruition without an understanding of these laws.

Finally, I am insulted by the way you respond to an intelligent argument. You think that your invention of some mystical "gravity" concept gives you the right to name-call and libel others. I never engaged in such behavior and see it as further proof of the corruption that is insidiously pulsating throughout our society.

Hardly an intelligent argument....At least some Zetic believers on here have argued better than you.  Here let me spoon feed this to you: Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses.

Oh an I don't recall anyone name calling you, just calling out your sad arguments.

Quote from: mallory d. on July 25, 2012, 10:05:20 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

Please keep in mind, Linguists are not scientists, and in the dictionary they are merely related words with same or SIMILAR meaning.

You're late.

Indeed, My sincere apologies.

Stay of execution for now.

The question boils down to how far you are willing to take theory, and the zetetic process stresses limiting theory as much as possible. This is why I refuse to accept gravitational theory.

This is a great example of how bulletproof the Zetetic process is.  I've gone one further and refuse to except magnetic theory.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 09:23:59 PM

The question boils down to how far you are willing to take theory, and the zetetic process stresses limiting theory as much as possible. This is why I refuse to accept gravitational theory.

This is a great example of how bulletproof the Zetetic process is.  I've gone one further and refuse to except magnetic theory.

The zetetic process propsed by Rowbotham is nonsense, that does not mean that zeteticism is all useless. the zetetic process outlined by Marcelli Truzzi is allied to science, but in a less dogmatic way than the skepticism that lurches forth from CSICOP (which has recently changed its name to something less sinister; it's still no less dogmatic though).

[Edit: corrected naming error.]

Quote from: Kendrick on July 26, 2012, 01:59:00 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 09:23:59 PM

The question boils down to how far you are willing to take theory, and the zetetic process stresses limiting theory as much as possible. This is why I refuse to accept gravitational theory.

This is a great example of how bulletproof the Zetetic process is.  I've gone one further and refuse to except magnetic theory.

I'm sorry, are you saying you don't believe in magnetism?

We are unable, through experimenation, to trace the phenomena of magnetism to its immediate and demonstrable cause. therefore it fails Zetetic rigor and falls in the same category as 'Gravitation'.

Does Zeteticism now allow the use of instrumentation in it's experiments? The source of magnetism can be easily verified. You can't see it, because it's subatomic particles causing it. But it's clearly there.

So if you can't trace the phenomena, do you still call it magnetism? How do you explain it? I've heard the Zetetic explanation for gravity, and it was rather dull and just makes more people ask why, so now I'm wondering how you explain this.

Does Zeteticism now allow the use of instrumentation in it's experiments? The source of magnetism can be easily verified. You can't see it, because it's subatomic particles causing it. But it's clearly there.

So if you can't trace the phenomena, do you still call it magnetism? How do you explain it? I've heard the Zetetic explanation for gravity, and it was rather dull and just makes more people ask why, so now I'm wondering how you explain this.

Just so I understand you clearly - you say the 'source' of magnetism - do you really mean the 'cause'?  The source of magnetism is usually quite plainly evident - the magnet itself. 

The 'cause' is something we cannot immediately demonstrate.

Zeteticism does not 'explain' anything, its merely a method for determining truth. 

I hope that makes sense.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 27, 2012, 10:32:47 AM

Does Zeteticism now allow the use of instrumentation in it's experiments? The source of magnetism can be easily verified. You can't see it, because it's subatomic particles causing it. But it's clearly there.

So if you can't trace the phenomena, do you still call it magnetism? How do you explain it? I've heard the Zetetic explanation for gravity, and it was rather dull and just makes more people ask why, so now I'm wondering how you explain this.

Just so I understand you clearly - you say the 'source' of magnetism - do you really mean the 'cause'?  The source of magnetism is usually quite plainly evident - the magnet itself. 

The 'cause' is something we cannot immediately demonstrate.

Zeteticism does not 'explain' anything, its merely a method for determining truth. 

I hope that makes sense.

I am also trying to understand. I've seen many people claiming to be Zetetic observers, yet they try to explain things to me. So you're saying that since you cannot directly observe the cause, you do not believe it because you cannot see it with your own eyes and it remains an unanswerable phenomena?

I am also trying to understand. I've seen many people claiming to be Zetetic observers, yet they try to explain things to me. So you're saying that since you cannot directly observe the cause, you do not believe it because you cannot see it with your own eyes and it remains an unanswerable phenomena?

Belief is a word associated with faith and witchcraft, accept is more appropriate for the idea i'm trying to convey. 

Zeteticism can be described as anti-theoretical.  Gravitation and Magnetism are both just theories and should not be accepted as fact.  Until all questions are answered absolute truth still eludes us.

Read chapter 1 of Rowbotham's work 'Earth Not a Globe' to get an idea of the difference between the Zetetic and Theoretical - then disregard the rest of the book.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 27, 2012, 12:56:05 PM

I am also trying to understand. I've seen many people claiming to be Zetetic observers, yet they try to explain things to me. So you're saying that since you cannot directly observe the cause, you do not believe it because you cannot see it with your own eyes and it remains an unanswerable phenomena?

Belief is a word associated with faith and witchcraft, accept is more appropriate for the idea i'm trying to convey. 

Zeteticism can be described as anti-theoretical.  Gravitation and Magnetism are both just theories and should not be accepted as fact.  Until all questions are answered absolute truth still eludes us.

Read chapter 1 of Rowbotham's work 'Earth Not a Globe' to get an idea of the difference between the Zetetic and Theoretical - then disregard the rest of the book.

If rowbotham made any of the above claims I am inclined to disregard the whole book. Read Popper for an investigation of why theoretical structures are not only necassery for knowledge, but integral to it - there cannot be knowledge without theory. Read Mercello Truzzi for why Zetecism goes hand in hand with science, as an alternative to scepticism (or as he called it psuedoscepticism) I think I have alread pointed you in these directions before.

 

Zeteticism can be described as anti-theoretical.  Gravitation and Magnetism are both just theories and should not be accepted as fact.  Until all questions are answered absolute truth still eludes us.

This statement is 1 of 2 things, either

1. A misunderstanding of how science works, because the author of the statement has not looked into the philosophy and development of scientific method.

2. A misrepresentation due to some agenda.

this kind of Zeteticism, by the sounds of it, has the implication that it is anti-knowledge.

Does Zeteticism now allow the use of instrumentation in it's experiments? The source of magnetism can be easily verified. You can't see it, because it's subatomic particles causing it. But it's clearly there.

So if you can't trace the phenomena, do you still call it magnetism? How do you explain it? I've heard the Zetetic explanation for gravity, and it was rather dull and just makes more people ask why, so now I'm wondering how you explain this.

I, too, would like this answered.

I must say that the notion of the gravitation being caused by the effects of widespread psychotropics is interesting, and would explain an awful lot.

I must say that the notion of the gravitation being caused by the effects of widespread psychotropics is interesting, and would explain an awful lot.

Zeteticists should be more open to experimentation with psychoactive substances than anyone else.

Anyone got an explanation for the acceleration? I think it is due to angelic rocket boosters attatched to the bottom of the flat earth, put there by great bog.

ricorrere,

burt.

P.S Kendrick, I have been waiting for your rebbutal to my post (post no 207).
PPS, and a reply to post 208, by someone (I can't remember who)

I must say that the notion of the gravitation being caused by the effects of widespread psychotropics is interesting, and would explain an awful lot.

Widespread psychotropics? There's a theory that says people have been stuck to the ground for tens of thousands of years because we're all hallucinating? That's almost as good as "moon shrimp"